St James Court

Updated 28 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection.

This inspection took place on 6 and 8 September 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that the provider submits to the Commission which gives us key information about the service, what it does well and what improvements they plan to make. We reviewed notifications and any other information we had received since the last inspection. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

Prior to the inspection we sent out nine questionnaires to people, their relatives and community professionals. We received three completed questionnaires. We have used the results as part of the evidence to make our judgement.

We spoke with five people who were receiving care and support and two relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, care- coordinator and two staff. After the visit to the office we contacted a further two staff to seek feedback. We reviewed three staff recruitment files and four care plans within the service and cross referenced practice against the provider’s own policies and procedures.

Updated 28 September 2017

This inspection took place on 6 and 8 September 2017. It was an announced visit to the service.

St James Court is registered to provide support with personal care. The main office is based within a supported living scheme of 12 flats. At the time of the inspection the service provided care and support to thirteen people who lived at the scheme.

At the last inspection undertaken on 8 June 2015 the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

We received positive feedback from people, their relatives. People told us they had developed a good working relationship with the staff. Comments included “They [staff] are very good,” “They [staff] will do anything to help.” One relative commented “I could not manage without them.” Another relative told us how happy they had been since their family member had moved into the scheme. “I am really happy with the service provided, what’s really nice is how easy the staff are with everyone.”

People were supported by staff with the right skills and experience, as recruitment processes were in place. People were supported to be involved in the recruitment of senior staff.

People were supported by staff who understood their role and were suitably trained and supported to provide safe care.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and what to do in the event of a concern being raised.

People received a person centred service, as they had been involved in developing care plans which reflected their likes and preferences.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were encouraged to participate in meaningful activities. People were supported to attend social events in the local area.

People told us they had confidence in the management and they would go to them if they had any concerns.

Staff told us they felt supported by management and felt involved in driving improvements. There was a positive culture within the organisation.